Bell's Theorem: The Quantum Venn Diagram Paradox

> Are you saying an omniscient being is impossible, because something about quantum mechanics implies that it is impossible to possess all possible knowledge? > Or are you saying that even if an omniscient being possesses all possible knowledge, they would nevertheless be unable to accurately predict all sequences because of some knowledge we have about quantum mechanics? That's an extremely astute question. I'm impressed that you managed to realize that that's an important distinction and that you don't know which it is. It's actually the latter, and incredibly we can prove it. And the proof of this is surprisingly accessible: [VIDEO]

My goal wasn't to explain a "correct" view quantum physics, only to demonstrate at a cursory level that a binary computer's bits differs from a quantum computer's qbits. Quantum physics is not intuitive and attempting to use a classical understanding of probability will get you in trouble. I highly suggest looking at videos on YouTube, which have a far better explanations on the actual behavior of quantum computation. This is a very good video on Bell's Inequality: [VIDEO]

Why Quantum Mechanics I have no idea. Why interpretations: There is an experiment you can do that is hard to explain: Either particles are able to somehow influence each other faster than light (non-local), or the particle somehow doesn't exist except when interacting with some other particle (non-real). Try this video: [VIDEO] the AHA moment in the video comes when you realize you can entangle the light and that adding a filter by one stream of light somehow causes the other stream of light to also be influenced.

Minute Physics and 3brown1blue did a two part collab that simplifies some of it down to a counting problem that'd be suitable for grade school. [VIDEO] [LINK]

I found these two videos very helpful in understanding the quantum nature of light after being stuck in the same spot: [VIDEO] [LINK] (Watch those in order, because they're a collaboration between two YouTubers)

Part of this is because of tests like the ones involved with Bells theorem. Minute physics does a better job explaining it then I can. [VIDEO]

I can also suggest a video that seemed to me to explain Bell's theorem and what it means that the correlations are stronger than classically possible here: [0] [VIDEO]

I really enjoyed this Minute Physics and 3Blue1Brown video describing hidden variables and Bell's theorem: [VIDEO] As you said, it's implies that we're not failing to measure some "hidden variable" that would explain probabilities away, but that the vary nature of these objects is probabilistic.